How Do People Morally Judge Corruption? A Comparison Between the Netherlands and Indonesia

Extant research on corruption has uncovered the important role of norms. Yet, little is known about how people view specific acts of corruption in countries that differ in the prevalence of corruption. The present research examines moral judgements of four different types of corrupt acts in a high- versus low-corruption country, thereby providing a critical test of two opposing hypotheses. The descriptive norms approach predicts that citizens of a high-corruption country will be morally more lenient than citizens of a low-corruption country. The relative deprivation approach predicts the opposite, that citizens of a high-corruption country will morally condemn corrupt acts stronger than citizens of a low-corruption country. Drawing samples from the Netherlands and Indonesia (a low- vs. high-corruption country), two experiments (total N = 477) show that Dutch participants are often more morally permissive towards corruption than Indonesians, although specific results varied for the four types of corruption. This largely supported the relative deprivation approach. In addition, Indonesian participants expressed more disappointment and anger towards corruption than Dutch participants. This research suggests that feeling deprived through regular corruption experiences leads people to condemn corrupt acts more strongly.